According to multiple team sources, the club is committed to retaining Curry long term; the question is for how much. Discussions were promising before Curry's camp suspended negotiations until after the preseason games. The expectation is that Curry will sign a contract extension by the Oct. 31 deadline.

But do the Warriors keep Bogut, who will be up for an extension after this season? Is rookie Harrison Barnes the small forward of the future? Is Klay Thompson good enough to be the starting shooting guard on a contender? Which of the Warriors' young players should be traded or kept?

"These players can stay as long as they want if we win," Myers said through a smile. "But if we don't win ... maybe things do get turned over."

Found this link and interesting that the FO wants to resign Curry now without him playing the season. I know it's safer now than when Curry is a restricted free agent, but unless it's for ten million or less a year, it's a big risk. I think Curry at the level he was before last season is worth ten million a year, but right now he is a question mark with those ankles.

It's very early to even think about contract extensions to Klay and Barnes. Bogut is the one that will be a huge contract decision. Bogut has just two years left on his contract and if he performs well this season, he'll have to be resigned, at no more than the salary he gets on his contract currently preferably, but that depends on how much the team wins. With AB and RJ, as well as Landry and Rush, only having one year left on their contracts after this season, and thus expirers, that allows much flexibility financially for the team.

It looks good after this upcoming season, so resigning Curry now is not a huge risk, just likely very possible of being overpaid.

I don't think Curry has done much to be worth more than 10 million a year. He is a big risk with those ankles and that's enough to make the FO very shaky on even thinking about giving him more and for five years at that.

Oh, the risk of letting him walk and trying to rebuild the point guard position without him is way more troubling, in my opinion. Sure, Curry is an injury risk... much more so than Bogut. Curry's ankle last year was a chronic thing; the year before that, it was his other ankle. He runs in an awkward fashion; it's caused the team trainers to alter the way they're going to tape him up and provide a different type of shoe for him.

That being said: Curry is this team's best player. It's not even close. I was at the game when Curry played his last minutes for Golden State last season. The team was in a 16-point hole when Jackson sent Curry to the scorer's table. The Warriors rallied to come back and trail by only 2. After a short burst, Jackson sat Curry the rest of the game and it wasn't even a contest. David Lee is an enourmous asset, Andrew Bogut makes this team legit, the Warriors have weapons and scorers and role players... but rest assured, if they make it to the playoffs, they only go as far as Steph Curry carries them. As a guy who purchases tickets every single year, my money says pay the man. Make him happy. Make him wanna lead this team. Curry is the most fundamentally skilled point guard in the league and his shot is nuts-on. He's not an athlete like DRose or John Wall, but he's in their league is he can play 75+ games and maintain his statline of 20 points, 7 assists, 2 steals, and 4 boards. That, to me, is worth $12 million a year.

The Golden State Warriors tipped off their preseason against the Los Angeles Lakers Sunday, but coach Mark Jackson held Stephen Curry out. Instead, he plans to have his guard, who is recovering from ankle surgery, make his preseason debut Monday versus the Utah Jazz. Jackson didn't want Curry to start things off with a back-to-back set of games, according to Marcus Thompson of the Contra Costa times.

Curry got in a full practice Saturday for the first time and said his ankle feels fine. Barring a setback, it appears he'll be all set when the regular season gets underway. If he can stay healthy for a change, Curry has tremendous upside this season.

Curry is very skilled, but will not be a top 5 PG unless he can either drive to the hoop well and/or play defense well. Nash is the only great PG I can think of that isn't a good defender and he is absolutely great at everything else.

Curry doesn't shoot that many free throws, due largely to not having the speed to take it to the basket, so the FT% isn't such a big thing. If he starts getting quite a fair amount of FTs, then that changes. Curry is very effective, I just don't think right now he is worth more than 10 million a year.

Well, speaking broadly, I agree, none of these athletes are worth $10 million a year.

But in a market where Gilbert Arenas will make $20 million to sit at home next season, while Baron Davis collects $14.5 million in amnesty cheese PLUS whatever the Knicks are gonna give him, all the while guys like Chris Paul ($17 mil), Deron Williams ($17 mil), and Derek Rose ($16 mil) are making SERIOUS scratch to be the best at their position... I think something in the ball park of $12 million for Steph Curry isn't really breaking the bank.

I'm not nearly as bullish as most of you on Curry. I'm a big believer that some players are injury-prone, and I'd hate to lock up the franchise on a guy who keeps missing time.

I think you have to let the season play out. If he gets hurt badly, you can cut ties and move on. If he plays great, he's a restricted free agent and you can match any offer. And if you extend him after a healthy season, you still leave open the option to trade him if a godfather offer ever comes along--which is only possible if he's healthy anyway. And if he gets hurt, you can resign him at a huge discount and trade him for something or keep him on the cheap.

Unless you get a MAJOR discount on him because of his history. But I doubt they'll receive a big enough discount that justifies the early extension.

Raider1015 wrote:I'm not nearly as bullish as most of you on Curry. I'm a big believer that some players are injury-prone, and I'd hate to lock up the franchise on a guy who keeps missing time.

I think you have to let the season play out. If he gets hurt badly, you can cut ties and move on. If he plays great, he's a restricted free agent and you can match any offer. And if you extend him after a healthy season, you still leave open the option to trade him if a godfather offer ever comes along--which is only possible if he's healthy anyway. And if he gets hurt, you can resign him at a huge discount and trade him for something or keep him on the cheap.

Unless you get a MAJOR discount on him because of his history. But I doubt they'll receive a big enough discount that justifies the early extension.

Sure, but at the same time, do you honestly believe that Steph Curry is injury-prone because he rolled the same ankle 3 times in 2 weeks? That would put anybody on the shelf for a long period of time. And I'm not saying lock up the franchise by spilling the entire bank on Curry with a maximum-per-year contract, but I absolutely believe we need to retain him. The league sees him as our most talented player, opposing fan bases all ask for him in trades on other message boards, and he seems genuinely interested (along with Lee) at the proposition of turning this franchise into a winner - and not merely bolting once he hits the open market. Loyalty is a big deal to me. Its also relevant to understand that Curry is our most efficient player in nearly all advanced/sabermetric categories across the board. When he plays, he makes a bigger difference than anybody on this roster... and no one under 7-feet (ie, Bogut) can argue that position.

Yes, technically, the Warriors have another year of restriction before Curry can hit free agency, but Steph's camp has expressed interest in getting a contract extension before the season starts and, with the exception of Scott Boras clients in MLB, I always deal from the mindset that it's best to keep players happy. If Curry wants an extension, it's fair for the team to try and work one out with him. That's not to say that he won't get a lower salary (again, something in the $10-$12 million per year range), but if you let him play out the season and he's magically cured and averaged 20 points, 7 assists, and 2 steals over a period of 75 games, he's going to easily increase his asking price to to $15 million range.

I think it'd be most prudent to get Curry a reasonable deal that will satisfy him and restore his faith in the team while his asking price is relatively low. With Bogut and Lee both commanding over $13 million for the next couple years, it's imperative that you don't give Curry the idea that he can get $15 or $16 million from another team.

Raider1015 wrote:I'm not nearly as bullish as most of you on Curry. I'm a big believer that some players are injury-prone, and I'd hate to lock up the franchise on a guy who keeps missing time.

I think you have to let the season play out. If he gets hurt badly, you can cut ties and move on. If he plays great, he's a restricted free agent and you can match any offer. And if you extend him after a healthy season, you still leave open the option to trade him if a godfather offer ever comes along--which is only possible if he's healthy anyway. And if he gets hurt, you can resign him at a huge discount and trade him for something or keep him on the cheap.

Unless you get a MAJOR discount on him because of his history. But I doubt they'll receive a big enough discount that justifies the early extension.

Sure, but at the same time, do you honestly believe that Steph Curry is injury-prone because he rolled the same ankle 3 times in 2 weeks? That would put anybody on the shelf for a long period of time. And I'm not saying lock up the franchise by spilling the entire bank on Curry with a maximum-per-year contract, but I absolutely believe we need to retain him. The league sees him as our most talented player, opposing fan bases all ask for him in trades on other message boards, and he seems genuinely interested (along with Lee) at the proposition of turning this franchise into a winner - and not merely bolting once he hits the open market. Loyalty is a big deal to me. Its also relevant to understand that Curry is our most efficient player in nearly all advanced/sabermetric categories across the board. When he plays, he makes a bigger difference than anybody on this roster... and no one under 7-feet (ie, Bogut) can argue that position.

Yes, technically, the Warriors have another year of restriction before Curry can hit free agency, but Steph's camp has expressed interest in getting a contract extension before the season starts and, with the exception of Scott Boras clients in MLB, I always deal from the mindset that it's best to keep players happy. If Curry wants an extension, it's fair for the team to try and work one out with him. That's not to say that he won't get a lower salary (again, something in the $10-$12 million per year range), but if you let him play out the season and he's magically cured and averaged 20 points, 7 assists, and 2 steals over a period of 75 games, he's going to easily increase his asking price to to $15 million range.

I think it'd be most prudent to get Curry a reasonable deal that will satisfy him and restore his faith in the team while his asking price is relatively low. With Bogut and Lee both commanding over $13 million for the next couple years, it's imperative that you don't give Curry the idea that he can get $15 or $16 million from another team.

I respectfully disagree on a few points.

I hope Curry's seven ankle sprains were all the same injury re-aggravated, but I can't help but be skeptical. It feels like 90% of injuries in hoops happen to 10% of the players.

I do not think Curry will sign for less than the max. slightly sub-all-star players under 25 pretty much deserve it. If he's healthy come October 31st (he had damn well better be ), then he'll be asking for the max because he's more optimistic than any of us, his agent wants the green, and most importantly, even if he does sustain some minor injuries, some team will still offer him the max in the off season. Eric Gordon just got the max and he has injury concerns, and that's about as close a parallel to Curry as you can get. I can't see why he should want to give us a discount unless he himself knows his ankle will be a problem.

I know that Curry is efficient as all hell--he's basically not-so-poor-man's Steve Nash in his prime. And provided you're right about his ankle, I would love to retain him. There's very few PGs in the league who are better, and they're all perennial All-Stars.